At this point in the
meeting declarations of interest are received from Members in any
of the agenda items under consideration at the meeting. Members are
asked to indicate:

(a) The agenda item number in which they have an
interest to declare.

(b) The nature of their interest.

(c) Whether their interest is a
disclosable pecuniary interestoran
otherinterest, (as defined in Part 2, A and
B of the Code of Conduct and Rules for Registration of
Interests)

Any Member who needs to clarify
any matters relating to the declaration of interests is recommended
to seek advice from the Council’s Monitoring Officeror a
member of his staff before the meeting to expedite dealing with the
item during the meeting.

Minutes:

Members declared that they had received emails
about the applications to be heard today. They affirmed that their
determination of the applications would not be influenced by the
content of those emails.

The parties confirmed that they understood the
procedure to be followed for the hearing.

The Senior Public Protection Officer presented
the report. Additional information had been submitted by the
objector and the applicant, which had been circulated before the
hearing. Members noted that the representation related only to the
proposed variation in the capacity limit for the site, and not to
any other part of the application.

Mr Tarren stated
the case for the applicant. He said that Valley Fest had been going
for some years, and had grown as a community event. The currently
permitted maximum capacity was 4999 people. The purpose of applying
for a capacity of 9999 was to allow the festival to grow over a
period of years without the need for repeated variation
applications. People who attend the festival are a mix of those
coming from local villages for a day and those who like to stay for
the weekend. There is a mix of space
available to the applicant on fields owned by Mr Hasell’s uncle and on land rented from two
neighbouring farmers. Discussions are in progress with the two
farmers about the renting of additional space in future on land
that will be returned to grass. There were areas that could be used
for either car parking or camping space, depending on how the
festival developed in the future. There had been a review of the
camping space available. If the same field was used for camping,
then there would be the same number of camping spaces as last year,
but on the other hand the number of spaces for camper vans might be
increased, as they seem to be becoming more popular than tents. It
was likely that a headline act would be booked for one day,
probably the Saturday, next year, which would draw a bigger
attendance while the attendances for Friday and Sunday remained
similar to this year. The applicant had preferred to deal with the
variation application before beginning the detailed planning for
next year’s event, to ensure greater clarity about the
framework within which planning could take place. Booking an artist
can take two years. He believed that the additional information
submitted over Christmas had demonstrated that there was sufficient
space available for what was planned this year, while he was aware
of the need to demonstrate that there was sufficient space for
later years.

Mr Hasell said
that the applicant had a long-term agreement with Bristol Water
allowing the use of their private road to provide access to the
parking spaces. There was also land owned by Bristol Water on which
additional parking could be provided in future, mainly for day
visitors, but this had not been included in the applicant’s
current plans. Bristol Water could become a sponsor of
...
view the full minutes text for item 48.

The parties indicated that they understood the
procedure to be followed for the hearing.

The Senior Public Protection Officer presented
the report. Members noted that the premises were located in the
Cumulative Impact Area, and that there was therefore a rebuttable
presumption that the application would be refused.

Mr Bret stated that he wished to withdraw the
application to allow him to have further discussions with his
neighbours, with whom he wished to remain on good terms. He would
therefore not make a statement in support of the application.

The Team Leader (Legal) advised Members that
they had to determine the application before them, which they could
grant, grant with modifications, or refuse.

Representors made brief statements in support
of their written representations.

RESOLVED
that the application be refused.

Reasons

Whilst noting the applicant wished to withdraw
the application to vary the premises licence at the Courtyard
Café, Lilliput Court, Bath it was nevertheless a matter for
Members to determine the application in accordance with the
Licensing Act 2003, Statutory Guidance and Council’s
Policy.

The Applicant

The applicant did not offer any evidence in
support the application. He stated he wished to negotiate with his
neighbours and find a way forward with a future application.

Interested
Parties

The objectors outlined their objections and
noted the applicant wished to negotiate on a possible future
application.

Members

Members noted the applicant did not put any
information forward in support of the application in the face of
the objections. Accordingly, given the presumption of refusal under
the Cumulative Impact policy Members refuse the application.